Admit.

Mr. Raghavendra Rao, learned Counsel appearing for defendant 6 has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:

(i) Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and have satisfied the requirement of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; and

(ii) Whether the agreement-Ex. P. 1 is prohibited and hit by Section 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

2. To appreciate the substantial questions of law raised by Mr. Raghavendra Rao, certain important facts are required to be noticed. The pleadings of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants can be summarised as follows.-

The plaintiff is a firm represented by its partners. The suit schedule property is a vacant plot of land Sy. No. 204/1 measuring 2 acres 2 guntas out of 5 acres 29 guntas of Kundavada Village. The suit property originally belonged to one Andanur Basappa of Davanagere. The said property was allotted to him in a family partition. He died on 8-6-1982 leaving behind him the defendants as legal heirs. First defendant is his wife, defendants 2 to 9 are his children and defendant 10 is his daughter-in-law and wife of deceased Andanur Mallashettappa. The plaintiffs 2 to 5 were interested in purchasing the suit schedule property for an industry to be started in the name of Vasavi Industrial Enterprises and for the said purpose, Andanur Basappa was interested in disposing of the plaint schedule property for his family necessities and deeds. Suffice it to say that the said understanding regarding purchase and sale was reduced in writing pursuant to an agreement to sell dated 1-1-1982.

3. Pursuant to the said agreement, Andanur Basappa also received a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiffs as part of the sale consideration as earnest money. He also agreed to receive the balance of consideration within a period of 6 months from the date of agreement. The sale consideration was Rs. 36,900/- per acre. The stipulation of the 6 months was for the purpose of obtaining exemption from the Deputy Commissioner under Section 7 of the Karnataka Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1975 as the subject-matter of the agreement to sell was a vacant land, coming within the purview of the said Act which required the exemption from the Deputy Commissioner to alienate the same for industrial purpose. For obtaining necessary permission, the execution and the registration of the regular conveyance was postponed for a period of 6 months to enable the parties to obtain exemption from -the Deputy Commissioner to effectuate the sale of the suit property. The parties also agreed to extend the said period until such exemption is granted in the event if the said exemption is not obtained by the parties within 6 months. It is also stated that Andanur Basappa had agreed for extension of the time till the exemption from the Deputy Commissioner is obtained. It is the case of the plaintiffs that inspite of such an obligation to perform his part of the contract, the said Andanur Basappa did not comply with the said requirement during this lifetime but however, died within the stipulated period of 6 months, i.e., on 8-6-1982.

4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Subsequently, the plaintiffs have paid some more money to the legal representatives of deceased Andanur Basappa on 10-7-1982. On 19-8-1982, the widow of Andanur Basappa requested for further amount of Rs. 20,000/- which was paid by the respondents through a cheque and an endorsement was also made on the agreement. The defendants thereafter promised that they would execute a regular conveyance in their favour but however, did not perform their part of the duty in executing the said regular conveyance. Suffice it to say a notice was issued on 11-4-1983 requesting the defendants to come and execute the sale deed. Since